Ken Catchpole1, Colby Perkins2,3, Catherine Bresee4, M Jonathon Solnik5, Benjamin Sherman6, John Fritch6, Bruno Gross6, Samantha Jagannathan6, Niv Hakami-Majd6, Raymund Avenido2, Jennifer T Anger2. 1. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 825 N. San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90069, USA. Ken.Catchpole@cshs.org. 2. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 825 N. San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, 90069, USA. 3. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Medical Student Training in Aging Research (MSTAR) Program, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expense, efficiency of use, learning curves, workflow integration and an increased prevalence of serious incidents can all be barriers to adoption. We explored an observational approach and initial diagnostics to enhance total system performance in robotic surgery. METHODS: Eighty-nine robotic surgical cases were observed in multiple operating rooms using two different surgical robots (the S and Si), across several specialties (Urology, Gynecology, and Cardiac Surgery). The main measures were operative duration and rate of flow disruptions-described as 'deviations from the natural progression of an operation thereby potentially compromising safety or efficiency.' Contextual parameters collected were surgeon experience level and training, type of surgery, the model of robot and patient factors. Observations were conducted across four operative phases (operating room pre-incision; robot docking; main surgical intervention; post-console). RESULTS: A mean of 9.62 flow disruptions per hour (95 % CI 8.78-10.46) were predominantly caused by coordination, communication, equipment and training problems. Operative duration and flow disruption rate varied with surgeon experience (p = 0.039; p < 0.001, respectively), training cases (p = 0.012; p = 0.007) and surgical type (both p < 0.001). Flow disruption rates in some phases were also sensitive to the robot model and patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Flow disruption rate is sensitive to system context and generates improvement diagnostics. Complex surgical robotic equipment increases opportunities for technological failures, increases communication requirements for the whole team, and can reduce the ability to maintain vision in the operative field. These data suggest specific opportunities to reduce the training costs and the learning curve.
BACKGROUND: Expense, efficiency of use, learning curves, workflow integration and an increased prevalence of serious incidents can all be barriers to adoption. We explored an observational approach and initial diagnostics to enhance total system performance in robotic surgery. METHODS: Eighty-nine robotic surgical cases were observed in multiple operating rooms using two different surgical robots (the S and Si), across several specialties (Urology, Gynecology, and Cardiac Surgery). The main measures were operative duration and rate of flow disruptions-described as 'deviations from the natural progression of an operation thereby potentially compromising safety or efficiency.' Contextual parameters collected were surgeon experience level and training, type of surgery, the model of robot and patient factors. Observations were conducted across four operative phases (operating room pre-incision; robot docking; main surgical intervention; post-console). RESULTS: A mean of 9.62 flow disruptions per hour (95 % CI 8.78-10.46) were predominantly caused by coordination, communication, equipment and training problems. Operative duration and flow disruption rate varied with surgeon experience (p = 0.039; p < 0.001, respectively), training cases (p = 0.012; p = 0.007) and surgical type (both p < 0.001). Flow disruption rates in some phases were also sensitive to the robot model and patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Flow disruption rate is sensitive to system context and generates improvement diagnostics. Complex surgical robotic equipment increases opportunities for technological failures, increases communication requirements for the whole team, and can reduce the ability to maintain vision in the operative field. These data suggest specific opportunities to reduce the training costs and the learning curve.
Entities:
Keywords:
Automation; Error; Human Factors; Robotic surgery; Safety; Teamwork
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Anthony E B Giddings; Michael Wilkinson; Guy Hirst; Trevor Dale; Marc R de Leval Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Daniel Shouhed; Renaldo Blocker; Alex Gangi; Eric Ley; Jennifer Blaha; Daniel Margulies; Douglas A Wiegmann; Ben Starnes; Cathy Karl; Richard Karl; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken R Catchpole Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Caprice C Greenberg; Scott E Regenbogen; David M Studdert; Stuart R Lipsitz; Selwyn O Rogers; Michael J Zinner; Atul A Gawande Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: K R Catchpole; A E B Giddings; M R de Leval; G J Peek; P J Godden; M Utley; S Gallivan; G Hirst; T Dale Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2006 Apr 15-May 15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Alexandra Gangi; Renaldo C Blocker; Eric J Ley; Jennifer Blaha; Bruce L Gewertz; Douglas A Wiegmann Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Lauren Morgan; Eleanor Robertson; Mohammed Hadi; Ken Catchpole; Sharon Pickering; Steve New; Gary Collins; Peter McCulloch Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ken R Catchpole; Elyse Hallett; Sam Curtis; Tannaz Mirchi; Colby P Souders; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Colby P Souders; Ken Catchpole; Alex Hannemann; Ronit Lyon; Karyn S Eilber; Catherine Bresee; Tara Cohen; Matthias Weigl; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Monica Jain; Brian T Fry; Luke W Hess; Jennifer T Anger; Bruce L Gewertz; Ken Catchpole Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Ken Catchpole; Ann Bisantz; M Susan Hallbeck; Matthias Weigl; Rebecca Randell; Merrick Kossack; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 3.661